3D Depth: Do you prefer strong 3D or conservative 3D?

[BD3Dfan]

I'm not one to use those terms as I judge a movie's 3D by how it's used with the movie, not the showcase potential (I.E. A movie can have good 3D, but a good plot should back it up). But I can help you understand those terms.

'Strong' = Deep images, though mostly used to indicate a movie that focuses a lot on Out-Of-Screen action. There are good movies that use this, but there's also movies like Turtle's Tale (Popular on this forum for the 3D use. Though, it's the only good point, as the plot is pretty much thin, as it is a movie suited for kids. No offence)

'Medium' = Good balance of depth and O-O-S action, though not completely present. At the most, these kinds of movies might have scenes where the 3D is turned down to a minimum, but noticeable level.

'Good' = Movies which use 3D pretty well, but not good enough to fit in the above categories. This may include movies that focus on deep depth and little O-O-S action, or movies that use 3D sparingly, but effectively.

'Weak' = Clash Of The Titans..... lol, just kidding. These are movies that use 3D in the worst way possible, where the convergence is turned to the lowest setting possible, or scenes of quality 3D are few and far between. Though, this term might be mis-used on a movie that uses 3D for depth, but no O-O-S action.


O-O-S = Out Of Screen = Pop-out.

Hope this answers your question.

[BleedOrange11]

Except for "Good," I always interpreted those terms as a subjective measure of the quantitative amount of parallax (or the depth strength / amount of z-axis stereo depth you can see) with no implications toward how the 3D was used creatively or how many "pop-out moments" there are.

[Jsmith82]

I would interpret as follows:

Strong = Strong positive and negative parallax IE a decent spread of 3D all around

Medium / Good (same thing) = Regular 3D, not a bad showing, not a jaw dropper.

Weak = hardly any depth, hardly any negative parallax - a mild showing.


That being said, here's the main problem. All opinions.

Asking for an opinion on the quality of 3d around here is like asking a group of people if Domino's Pizza tastes good. Some people will say hell yeah, they are the best! Some will say meh, they're pretty good. Then some people will say that tastes like crap and have nothing on X pizzeria.

This forum is by far my favorite place to meander on the web, chat about movies and 3d, catch upcoming movies. But I trust no single person on the quality of a 3d film - if the entire forum is up in arms over a flick it's pretty safe to say you're in for a good showing but when the opinions are back and forth and back and forth, buy the movies that you WANT to see - develop your own opinion.

And by golly DEFINITELY don't listed to me, as all of the above is my own opinion.

Inception 2: BR.COM An opinion of opinions from within an opinion.

[gamermwm]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

I would interpret as follows:

Strong = Strong positive and negative parallax IE a decent spread of 3D all around

Medium / Good (same thing) = Regular 3D, not a bad showing, not a jaw dropper.

Weak = hardly any depth, hardly any negative parallax - a mild showing.


That being said, here's the main problem. All opinions.

Asking for an opinion on the quality of 3d around here is like asking a group of people if Domino's Pizza tastes good. Some people will say hell yeah, they are the best! Some will say meh, they're pretty good. Then some people will say that tastes like crap and have nothing on X pizzeria.

This forum is by far my favorite place to meander on the web, chat about movies and 3d, catch upcoming movies. But I trust no single person on the quality of a 3d film - if the entire forum is up in arms over a flick it's pretty safe to say you're in for a good showing but when the opinions are back and forth and back and forth, buy the movies that you WANT to see - develop your own opinion.

And by golly DEFINITELY don't listed to me, as all of the above is my own opinion.

Inception 2: BR.COM An opinion of opinions from within an opinion.

I agree with your definitions above. Although I would also add that Medium 3D, being the more ho-hum good/average 3D presentations *but nothing spectacular* - are all in all far better than they were in 2010 or 2011 (or earlier). 3D conversions are much better as a whole and so the whole scale has come up in the past couple years

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

I've seen these words bandied about quite a bit and rarely are they followed by explanation.
In an effort to get us all to better understand each other I'd like to know what is meant by each of these.
When you say "strong 3d" are you talking lots of pop outs and visual gimmickery? Lots of depth, a blend of both, etc?
Of course opinions on individual movies will vary person to person but if we at least understand what is meant when we say "I thought the 3D was weak in this movie" or "3D effect was medium to strong" then it will be to the benefit of all.
Just a thought.

Great question and great explanations posted above.

To make it easy, you could compare everything to Avatar's strong 3D(most of the time) and see where it falls in comparison. For more accuracy, consider the following:

Double Image Separation: A more accurate way to judge 3D without opinion:
The thing that separates a true measure of 3D from opinion would be to judge the double image separation when not wearing your 3D glasses, and just looking at the 3DTV screen. A measurement in itself is not an opinion, but a measurable fact.

The real trick is measuring the degree of separation/blur that is present. Generally, you can look at the screen and if it's very blurry, unclear compared to a 2D movie, there's a great chance that if converted properly (and not just pushed back into the screen), the 3D layers will be strong.

To measure it, it's best done at home with a clumsy Ruler or measuring stick.

The following Chart is Dependent on a comparably sized Screen: Example: A 46" 3DTV compared to a 46" 3DTV: A 24" 3DTV wouldn't give the same measurement as a 100+" 3D projection screen.

Measuring Double Image Separation:
0 centimeters of separation = 2D (A 2D movie)
1 centimeter of separation = Very weak 3D.
2 cm of separation = Weak 3D (mild 3D)
3 cm of separation = Medium 3D (good 3D)
4 cm of separation = Upper Medium 3D (very good 3D)
5 cm of separation = Strong 3D (great 3D)
6 cm or more of separation = Very strong 3D (awesome 3D)

Those measurements are like measuring the photo finish of a race, or how many points were scored in a game by two opposing teams. Opinion has no say. It's either strong 3D or it's not regarding the double image separation, which is a more accurate measure of the distance of the 3D layers from each other.

We could say through opinion, that a weak 3D movie has medium 3D, but it wouldn't mean it was true until we find a way to all measure it individually for accuracy, despite our perceptions of what is good or not.

KEEPING IN MIND:
Not all movies have equal levels of 3D. Some have wide open scenery shots that end up looking weak, as they would with real stereo 3D eyes because of the distance and interaxial eye separation (distance between our eyes, compared to a mouse-sees weaker 3D or elephant-sees stronger 3D if that's possible since their eyes are on the side of their heads). Or a tiny kitten's eyes to a giant Lion's eyes.

Weak, Medium, Strong 3D:
For example: Watch these without 3D glasses:
Weaker 3D: I Robot 3D, Smurfs 3D, Tron Legacy. Most of it has little separation and generally looks flatter compared to Avatar's 3D.
Medium 3D: Resident Evil Afterlife or Redemption most of the way. Star Trek Into Darkness, Avengers 3D.
Stronger 3D: Avatar 3D, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Flying Swords of Dragon Gate, Madagascar 3 3D, Open Season 3D, Pacific Rim 3D, etc.
Very Strong 3D: Turtle's Tale 1 and 2.

As other suggested, a lot of times, I wonder what the 3D is being compared to when someone says a movie looked like weak 3D, when I measured it as medium 3D.

It's a tough situation, but these terms give us something to work with.

Any new ideas to measure 3D more accurately are welcome.

[blae03]

Can someone tells me why Imax movies, Cameron movies (avatar, Ghost of the abyss) has really strong 3d and other movies, medium 3d. On medium 3d, you have the depth that is all right, but i would ratter have strong 3d on every movies like sanctum.

[Richard--W]

I prefer STRONG 3-D at all times with EXTREME moments as needed in the service of a straightforward but subtle story shot on 35mm film with fixed lenses in the service of a layered blocking in a long distance set-up requiring infinite depth of field and no cgi. So there.

For example, SECOND CHANCE and INFERNO from the 1953.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

I prefer strong to normal. Though I would consider Legend of the Guardians strong...I thought it had some of the best 3D in terms of depth and a satisfying amount of pop-out while still maintaining a strong of amount of detail throughout. It, like Avatar, was damn near reference quality for the format IMO.

It's no surprise that my vote is always for strong 3D.

3D that doesn't use the negative parallax isn't real 3D to me, it's more like 2.5D. It makes me constantly aware that what I'm watching could have looked so much better.

They do look nice but I don't consider Avatar or Legend of The Guardians as having particularly strong 3D and certainly wouldn't say they were reference quality like Sammy's Adventures: A Turtles Tale (my best 3D experience at home) or Hugo (my best 3D experience theatrically).

Avatar does have it's strong moments in the first half (mainly foliage) but at exactly the point when the 3D ought to ramp up, it dials back and stays almost entirely behind the screen. I find it frustratingly inconsistent.

I can't say I noticed any satisfying pop-out in Legend Of The Guardians either, though the 3D certainly made the slow motion and battle scenes look more impressive...

[EVERRET]

The best 3D for me is when your screen no longer looks like a movie is "on it"...... the movie "screen" disappears.

Its like.... you are actually there.

[nycomet]

The one movie that comes to mind that falls into the EXTREME 3D category is Amityville Horror 3D. I actually "felt" the muscles in my eyeballs flexing to focus on the 3D in many parts of the movie.

There is one particular scene in which that dreadful actress Tess Harper goes down to the basement after the power goes out.

[Show spoiler]She carries a sizeable flashlight and points it toward the camera. The pop out is fun, but it practically made me cross-eyed for a few moments.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

I think conservative 3D will be much more acceptable once glasses are not needed, but atm, whilst people have to go to the trouble of wearing glasses that darken the image, well stuff better damn well pop and remind us why we are going to the trouble. If there were no glasses I think even mild 3D would still be enjoyable, not as an immersive experience as such, but as a light improvement on 2D.

I reached pretty much the same conclusion, and I've felt that way for a while now. It's one of the reasons I haven't been particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of glasses-free 3-D.

I prefer 3-D to be a special event. I'm not sure I want it to become just an everyday thing and lose the wow factor.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by Captain Jack

If there were no glasses I think even mild 3D would still be enjoyable, not as an immersive experience as such, but as a light improvement on 2D.

Sadly not the case using Head Mounted Display technology; i.e. Direct-view 3D with 2D light improvement benefits. Immersive enjoyment is always disappointing with mild 3D, even with added visible detail from the dark scenes.

[Zivouhr]

Most of us see in 3D every day of our life with two regular functioning eyes, but it's still a cool thing to experience and gives an advantage when perceiving objects, but also makes the world look more exciting.

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I prefer STRONG 3-D at all times with EXTREME moments as needed in the service of a straightforward but subtle story shot on 35mm film with fixed lenses in the service of a layered blocking in a long distance set-up requiring infinite depth of field and no cgi. So there.

For example, SECOND CHANCE and INFERNO from the 1953.

Sounds good and very descriptive. Thanks.

Originally Posted by the13thman

It's no surprise that my vote is always for strong 3D.

3D that doesn't use the negative parallax isn't real 3D to me, it's more like 2.5D. It makes me constantly aware that what I'm watching could have looked so much better.

Avatar does have it's strong moments in the first half (mainly foliage) but at exactly the point when the 3D ought to ramp up, it dials back and stays almost entirely behind the screen. I find it frustratingly inconsistent.

I can't say I noticed any satisfying pop-out in Legend Of The Guardians either, though the 3D certainly made the slow motion and battle scenes look more impressive...

Agreed. Dreamworks' Rise of the Guardians had medium 3D with hints of strong 3D here and there, but Legend of the Guardians I would consider subtle 3D and a movie that played it very safe with what it could've been in 3D. I agree that now that I've since gotten Avatar on blu ray 3D, the 3D wasn't as strong as initially remembered in many shots, since first seeing it back in 2009 in theaters. Glad to hear Cameron is aiming to push the 3D farther and suggested he played it safe at times.

Originally Posted by nycomet

The one movie that comes to mind that falls into the EXTREME 3D category is Amityville Horror 3D. I actually "felt" the muscles in my eyeballs flexing to focus on the 3D in many parts if the movie.

There is one particular scene in which that dreadful actress Tess Harper goes down to the basement after the power goes out.

[Show spoiler]She carries a sizeable flashlight and points it toward the camera. The pop out is fun, but it practically made me cross-eyed for a few moments.

Yeah, that would be extreme 3D to the point that at a normal viewing distance, your eyes strain to blend the two images into one, and it can still be strong 3D that clearly looks drastically different in layering when you close one eye to compare it to the 2D image. When you reopen the other eye, the 3D should clearly and unmistakably POP! That's strong 3D.

Originally Posted by EVERRET

The best 3D for me is when your screen no longer looks like a movie is "on it"...... the movie "screen" disappears.

Its like.... you are actually there.

Yes.

[Interdimensional]

Regarding the debate, it's a bit like if someone's telling you a story do you prefer them to be whispering/mumbling, or SHOUTING IN YOUR EAR?

The depth isn't what does it for me. Snowflakes in the foreground and mountains in the background aren't the epitome of the technology. What has always impressed me most about 3-D is when people and objects on screen take on a tangible sense of dimension. When it seems so real you almost want to reach out and touch it. You're right there in the experience.

In life, that level of stereoscopy only really kicks in when we're within a few feet away from what we're viewing. It's the difference between seeing an actor on stage, versus in person, close enough to shake their hand.

With cinema, we should be able to get closer to the actors and see every nuance of the performance as real as if it were a personal interaction. The way some recent 3-D films have been made, it's like the dimensional equivalent of watching a whole movie in establishing shots, with no close-ups.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Most of us see in 3D every day of our life with two regular functioning eyes, but it's still a cool thing to experience and gives an advantage when perceiving objects, but also makes the world look more exciting.

fair point. I just feel like I wouldn't want to see it become so commonplace that even soap operas and the Jeremy Kyle show used it. Perhaps I should be more open to the idea.

[bavanut]

I think "strong 3-D" can actually be quantified, not merely qualified.

A conservative approach insists that positive parallax should be ≤ 65 mm, even on the very largest screens. But to achieve stereo with real visual power, in my view, one has to be willing to allow positive screen parallax in an amount somewhat greater than the average human interocular, albeit with all the typical caveats and restrictions (e.g., the eyes of the spectator ought not rotate outward more than one degree, items with large amounts of positive parallax ought not be of primary visual interest, etc.).

When a stereographer insists that positive parallax should be way, way less than 65 mm, and further insists that nothing must ever break the plane of the screen, then we can call that very timid and feeble 3-D. This is the approach of too many recent 3-D films, including well-regarded items like Inside Out.

More stereographers and cinematographers need to learn the value of placing objects judiciously in theater space. This does not necessarily have to mean "transgressive 3-D" with lots of arrows, flaming torches, yo-yos, eyeballs and tobacco juice shooting into the audience's faces. But as someone else has said, it will mean creating a greater sense of visual intimacy and immersion for the audience. Handled well, negative parallax is a major part of what makes 3-D matter to a film and to an audience.

Over the weekend, I caught up with The Walk by Robert Zemeckis, where I witnessed many nuanced examples of foreground objects brought forward of the screen plane in natural and unobtrusive ways. This is a film that knows how to bring the action forward without becoming a gimmick fest. (It does allow itself a handful of pleasantly "gimmicky" moments, though, which is sure to please some of you, as it did me.) The Walk joins some of the classic films of the 1950s in sculpting a lovely stereoscopic image that makes good use of both screen space and theater space. As near as I could judge looking at my local IMAX screen here in Burbank, the positive parallax values were north of 65 mm, but not objectionably so. I had no problem with fusion, and nor did my fiancée, who ordinarily cannot abide 3-D films.

It does not please me to say it, but there are times in The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet, a very well-regarded 3-D film of recent vintage, when the incredibly small stereo baselines result in shots where, sure, there is a reasonably well-rounded object with a small amount of negative parallax in the extreme foreground, but set against a completely flattened, none-too-distant looking background that might as well be from Olan Mills. I have seen a similar aesthetic at work in other films.

Several people online, here and elsewhere, have stated that it is difficult for them to fuse and comfortably view objects projecting forward of the screen plane. This strikes me as remarkable, and not in a good way. A negative parallax value of 65 mm places an object midway between the screen and the spectator, at least in theory, and not far off from that in actual practice. A person seated 20 feet from the screen, presented with negative parallax values of 65 mm, will perceive the object hanging in space about ten feet away. Much of our daily interaction with people and objects in everyday reality takes place well within ten feet of our faces, and presumably most of us have little to no difficulty with comfortable fusion in such close proximity. For a person to say they cannot easily or comfortably fuse items with 65 mm of onscreen negative parallax suggests to me there may be undiagnosed vision problems that ought to be discussed with a qualified ophthalmologist.

Having said all that, when it comes to Amityville 3-D, all bets are off! Parallax values in that film, projected theatrically, could conceivably be measured in feet, not mere inches. For all its modest merits, Amityville 3-D is a case study in what it means to have way too much parallax in a stereo image. For the record, this will not stop me watching it again. And again.

[bavanut]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

For example, SECOND CHANCE and INFERNO from the 1953.

I think Inferno is absolutely beautiful to look at. I have mentioned that my fiancée cannot typically abide 3-D films, but she has told me a number of times that Inferno is her favorite vintage 3-D film. She really likes it.

It's been, gee, nine years now since I last saw Second Chance. I seem to remember it doing its best to avoid negative parallax, not unlike Dangerous Mission from the same studio. But Dangerous Mission is a special favorite of mine, in spite of its restraint. I trust your good judgment implicitly, Richard, and I do hope I get another chance to see Second Chance.

[silentbob]

I like a strong 3D experience. If you are making something in 3D, use it to your advantage for the movie. Didn't think the 3D was strong in Amazing Spider-Man but I liked the adjustment they did for the sequel. Although i thought Kung Fu Panda 2 (theatre viewing) was actually pretty strong.

[Orionduzt14]

Love the strong 3D to extreme 3D. They are doing all this new real D 3D movies now and it's so boring! No feeling like you are emersed in the movie no jumping back cause there is something jumping out from the picture. That is the whole point of 3D is it not? To make you feel emersed in the movie.. Like you were standing next to a character.. Like the monster was trying to take a bite out of you!?

We can handle these crazy realistic thriller horror films they put out but no more 3D that is too strong or too"in your face"

It gets boring and disappointing when for instance I saw Avengers Age of Ulrton and it got to a point when I couldn't tell( didn't know) if it was in 3D or not ...it just looked like a normal movie.. With the exception of a slightly protruded 3D effect of foreground, middle ground and background.

[ColumbiaSunburstHD]

I like all 3D depth levels. But i think medium to strong 3D is my main bet.